Skip to main content
Glama

list_assignments

View papers assigned to you for a specific conference venue based on your reviewer or area chair role.

Instructions

List papers assigned to you for a given venue.

Args: venue_id: The venue identifier (e.g., 'ICLR.cc/2025/Conference'). Use list_venues to find this. role: Your role — 'reviewer', 'area_chair', or 'senior_area_chair'. Default: 'reviewer'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
venue_idYes
roleNoreviewer

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The list_assignments tool implementation, decorated with @mcp.tool(), which fetches assignments using OpenReview edges and formats them for the user.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def list_assignments(venue_id: str, role: str = "reviewer") -> str:
        """List papers assigned to you for a given venue.
    
        Args:
            venue_id: The venue identifier (e.g., 'ICLR.cc/2025/Conference'). Use list_venues to find this.
            role: Your role — 'reviewer', 'area_chair', or 'senior_area_chair'. Default: 'reviewer'.
        """
        client = get_client()
        profile_id = client.profile.id
    
        group_name = ROLE_MAP.get(role)
        if not group_name:
            return f"Unknown role '{role}'. Use 'reviewer', 'area_chair', or 'senior_area_chair'."
    
        edges = client.get_all_edges(
            invitation=f"{venue_id}/{group_name}/-/Assignment",
            tail=profile_id,
        )
    
        if not edges:
            return f"No papers assigned to you as {role} for {venue_id}."
    
        lines = [f"You have **{len(edges)}** paper(s) assigned as **{role}** for **{venue_id}**:\n"]
    
        for edge in edges:
            note = client.get_note(edge.head)
            title = note.content.get("title", {}).get("value", "Untitled")
            abstract = note.content.get("abstract", {}).get("value", "")
            if len(abstract) > 200:
                abstract = abstract[:200] + "..."
            date_str = ""
            if note.cdate:
                dt = datetime.fromtimestamp(note.cdate / 1000, tz=timezone.utc)
                date_str = f" (submitted {dt.strftime('%Y-%m-%d')})"
    
            lines.append(f"### #{note.number}: {title}")
            lines.append(f"- **ID:** {note.id}{date_str}")
            if abstract:
                lines.append(f"- **Abstract:** {abstract}")
            lines.append("")
    
        return "\n".join(lines)
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly confirm safety, disclose rate limits, or explain error conditions (e.g., invalid venue_id). It minimally establishes the user-centric context ('assigned to you').

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Uses a standard docstring format with Args section. Every line serves a purpose: one line for the operation summary, two lines for parameter documentation. No redundant or filler text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter list operation with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the essential workflow dependency (list_venues) and parameter constraints. Could be improved by mentioning authentication requirements or output structure, but the output schema mitigates the latter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for both parameters: venue_id includes a concrete example (ICLR.cc/2025/Conference) and cross-reference to list_venues; role enumerates valid values and states the default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description provides a specific verb (List), resource (papers/assignments), and scope (for a given venue assigned to you). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_venues (finds venues) and get_reviews (retrieves review content).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit workflow guidance by directing users to 'use list_venues to find this' when describing the venue_id parameter. This establishes a clear dependency chain. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance contrasting with similar tools, preventing a perfect score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/michaelqshieh/openreview-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server